And here it is. Watch. Days from now, weeks from now, months from now, years from now, some leftist, some Obamunist wannabe, whoever the next Harry Reid is, the current Harry Reid, whoever.....

Is gonna go to the podium and say "we need internet taxes across the board, and this is a bipartisan issue. both democrats, and republicans have called for internet taxes, so it must be done."

Or however it will end up being worded.

This is GOP-E Enabling of leftist causes. Chris Christie, you are the progressive enabler of the day.

We need to continually primary these big government republicans out of existence. We cannot afford this anymore! Republicans are screwing this country as fast as the democrats are, and we conservatives stand alone.

This is another reason I don’t like Christie.
What is so darn wrong with choking off spending? Why is it that politicians have to tax everything that moves and half of what’s dead?
Flip it around and cut back your state taxes. See how many companies relocate and provide new jobs.... jobs for people that pay taxes. Be competitive not punitive.

10
posted on 07/16/2012 2:45:59 PM PDT
by bossmechanic
(If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)

Christie has done some good things but his problem, he is still a RINO country club executive/establishment type who is out of touch. One good thing from Christie was he pretty well eliminate state safety inspections for cars.

I have an honest question.... Let’s say I open a business, take on overhead, employees, etc. Then some guy in another state does the same, but undercuts me on price through the internet. Wouldn’t I want a sales tax to protect my business? Create an even playing field?

A candid comment from your typical "moderate" voter on the race to fill Thad McCotter's seat (Who was himself a less than ideal congressman that conservatives compromised to support)

"I and a lot of Republicans I know won't vote for a tea party guy," said attorney David Zacks of Bloomfield Hills, strolling past the expensive boutique shops of downtown Birmingham with his son during a recent lunch hour.

These scumbags flap their gums with holier than thou moralism about us puritans needing to support their guy but when it comes right down to it, they are the true purists who won't support anything less than their mild liberalism.

20
posted on 07/16/2012 3:03:31 PM PDT
by cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)

I have long said that applying state sales taxes for online retail sales is almost a no-brainer. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else does, but if retail sales are taxed than all similar retail sales should be taxed. Without this sort of system in place, local businesses are often at a competitive disadvantage against out-of-state (or even out-of-country) competitors.

Wouldnt I want a sales tax to protect my business? Create an even playing field?

Yes, YOU would want that, but your CONSUMER would not want YOUR idea of a "level" playing field.

Instead of taxing your opponent, the free market should decide. How is he able to under cut you? Is it that his product is lesser quality? Is he trying to sell at a loss? Or, does he have a better business model than you?

If your product/business is better, than you will develop a reputation as having a better product. This forces your competition to either go out of business, or strive to develop a better business/product. If your competition improves, or your competition was better to begin with, then it forces you to make a better business/product.

This is how innovation comes about. The consumer gets the best products at the best price. The businessman runs his business in order to gain the most consumers for the most profit.

When government gets involved....it becomes SNAFU. When you open the door and welcome taxes, be sure more than you expect will follow. Along with taxes comes regulation. Of course, don't expect your competition to sit idly by and watch you destroy him.......he is going to lobby to raise taxes and regulation against YOU.

Under this leftist model (think GM and GE) the object isn't product innovation, but government/regulatory innovation. The consumer gets inferior products at a ridiculous price; not to mention, the "law of unintended consequences" that screws over businesses/products that aren't even related to yours.

27
posted on 07/16/2012 3:13:40 PM PDT
by Repeat Offender
(Why do cops have more lenient ROEs when facing us than troops in combat facing suicidal islamists?)

That’s exactly right. It gets even more bizarre when you have online sales items shipped through facilities in states where no tax is applied to most online purchases. In New Jersey, for example, products shipped to customers through the new Amazon distribution center will eventually be subject to New Jersey sales tax ... but they will probably not be subject to any sales tax if they are shipped across the state line to Pennsylvania. This makes no sense at all.

In my opinion, the smoking ban in Michigan bars should be nullified. Number 1 its not constitutional. Number 2 is the fact that the casinos lobbied for it, yet got an exemption from the law themselves.

Its a classic case of business using government to harm the competition. In this case the competition was the smallest businessmen of them all.

29
posted on 07/16/2012 3:18:07 PM PDT
by cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)

You've made a great case to eliminate the sales tax entirely. What you have not done, however, is demonstrate how having a state government apply sales taxes differently for the same product is somehow a "free market" at work.

What does the person who pays the sales tax for an online purchase get in return for those taxes paid? I could see with a brick and mortar store the taxes go towards snow plowing, upkeep of the roads leading to the store, local police and fire protection, etc.

But with online purchases, the state does nothing - this is just a naked grab for more of our money.

I recall around 2006 that North Carolina cooperated with TN tax authorities to get the names/addresses of those who bought furniture at the factories there. The TN residents were just a little surprised when they received a tax bill.

For the state the purchaser resides in, it still provides services in the state where the business resides, but it doesn't get the benefit, unless it gets the sales taxes from the business....but how is that business going to get those taxes from the purchaser, as would be the case in a brick-and-mortar purchase.

However, the other side of the coin is that since having out-of-state consumers is an advantage to online businesses that the brick-and-mortar businesses don't have...the online business should be happy to pay the sales taxes without having to get them from the out-of-state purchasers, it's just a cost of doing business around the country/globe.

Amazon is complicit in this, and it is a pretty lousy anti-competitive thing for them to be doing. They will be able to handle it as a multi billion dollar company, but it buts an onerous regulatory burden on all the mom and pop and small retailers who will be subjected to collecting sales tax for the 49 states they don’t live in. Big business in cahoots with big government is a recipe for disaster.

That's how the free market works and a true free marketeer will seek a means of remaining competitive without calling in favors from the federal mob.

Except that, in the example, the out-of-state guy is not undercutting the in-state guy on price, quality, or service. The only advantage the out-of-state guy has is that he does not need to charge sales tax, but the in-state guy does. Assuming that both the out-of-state guy and the in-state guy charge the same amount for the same item, that means that the out-of-state guy's products automatically cost the consumer ~3-8% less (depending on the state), purely because of differing tax rules. That is NOT a "free market" situation, that is a disparity CREATED BY the government.

Also, it's worth noting that in nearly every state, internet purchases (and mail order purchases, etc) ARE taxed. Merchants are not required to collect the taxes, but people are supposed to report such purchases (although, of course, many don't). In some ways, these proposals are really tax collection measures rather than new taxes.

Seizing on the recent political shift, Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and co-sponsors from both parties are attempting to speed up action on a bill they wrote to give states authority to compel online companies to collect sales taxes.

Instead of taxing your opponent, the free market should decide. How is he able to under cut you? Is it that his product is lesser quality? Is he trying to sell at a loss? Or, does he have a better business model than you?

Under the current taxation rules, your opponent doesn't need to do anything to undercut you. If he sells the same quality product, at the same price, his product will cost the consumer ~3-8% less than yours, simply because he is out of state and you are not.

When government gets involved....it becomes SNAFU. When you open the door and welcome taxes, be sure more than you expect will follow. Along with taxes comes regulation. Of course, don't expect your competition to sit idly by and watch you destroy him.......he is going to lobby to raise taxes and regulation against YOU.

You're right. Excelt that government is ALREADY involved. The taxation rules already set by the government give out of state merchants an advantage. Taxing internet purchases may not be a free market solution, but leaving the current system in place may not be a free market solution either.

You've made a great case to eliminate the sales tax entirely. What you have not done, however, is demonstrate how having a state government apply sales taxes differently for the same product is somehow a "free market" at work.

I'm more in favor of getting rid of income tax vice getting rid of sales tax.

However, to answer how this is the "free market at work" --

In states that are more "free" say comparing South Carolina, to California....businesses are free to move to states such as South Carolina where products are not priced higher via tax in order to pay for entitlement programs and "high-speed" rail to nowhere. This is the free market. It would also aid in forcing stupid states to stop spending money unwisely so they would be enticed to lower taxes in order to compete with lower taxed states.....This is the free market.

California is free to tax products sold in their state however it wants. South Carolina is free to tax products in their state however it wants. However, trying to tax out of state purchases is akin to tariffs between the states and would be "interstate commerce" in its truest sense (vice the garbage infringement Kongress attempts to call it) and should be regulated as such....ie, there should be no taxes at the state level for items sold across state lines.

South Carolinians purchasing items from California via the internet should not pay either SC or CA sales tax. Neither should Californians purchasing items via the internet pay either CA or SC sales tax. This would be equal application under the law and your "free market at work."

Now, if you really wanted to be "fair" and have a "free market"......we would end taxes on productivity (income taxes both state and fed) and implement a Fair Tax on consumption (state and fed sales tax) that were applied evenly to all end user goods and services (yes; food and clothes too - this prevents lobbyists from determining their product is "essential" but not others).

Taking one unfair policy or tax and implementing another to counter it is not fair, the free market, nor a conservative principle. I didn't vote for New Jersey's stupidity because I don't live there..........don't make me pay their damn taxes.

45
posted on 07/16/2012 3:51:16 PM PDT
by Repeat Offender
(Why do cops have more lenient ROEs when facing us than troops in combat facing suicidal islamists?)

Taking one unfair policy or tax and implementing another to counter it is not fair, the free market, nor a conservative principle. I didn't vote for New Jersey's stupidity because I don't live there..........don't make me pay their damn taxes.

No one is asking you to pay New Jersey's taxes. An internet tax would apply the sales tax of the state in which the purchaser sits. If you're in SC, and you buy over the internet, you pay no tax, just as you would pay no tax if you walked down the street to purchase the same good. So, in competing for your business, the out-of-state internet company gains no artificial benefit.

Likewise, if you're in NY, and you buy something over the internet, you would pay NY tax, just as you would if you walked down the street to buy the same thing. Again, in competing for your business, the out-of-state internet company would gain no artificial benefit (as they do currently).

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.